If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

Excellent. Just excellent rebuttal of the George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper theory.

Or if one prefers, it's easier to believe Hutchinson made it all up. Because he could. Which is usually why people do everything they do.

Easier to believe anything but he was Jack the Rpper. Either way, you have done great here. Where were you 10 years ago RJ when we needed you on these Hutch suspect threads.

This didn't take long. Our work is done here. Let's all go to Denny's for a Grand Slam breakfast.

Roy

Not to dampen your enthusiasm, Roy, but the argument that Lewis would have had a few seconds only, in darkness to boot, to observe the loiterer had been presented many times before. To which degree it has impressed those who favour Hutchinson should be obvious.

Personally, I donīt think it is the best argument against the theory that Hutch was the killer - if the loiterer WAS Hutchinson (and I donīt think that he was, not for a minute), then he could not be certain about the extent to which Lewis could make out his appearance, and so it would stand to reason that he could have wanted to take precautions by going to the police, offering up his story.

To me, Frank Leanders words about the signatures tells us that Abberlines and Dews assertions about the veracity of the witness were well grounded - he seems to have given his correct name on the witness statement. Plus, Hutchinsons omission to mention Lewis points totally away from the two having met right outside Millers Court. The explanation that Hutchinson would not have wanted the police to realize that Lewis was the very reason for his coming forwards falls flat on itīs behind as far as Iīm concerned; if he was really in place at the time he said he was, and if Lewis really passed into the court at the time she said she did, then there was not a chance in hell that he could have missed her. And he would have been acutely aware of that, so withholding that information could never serve to bolster his version of events. It would instead cast doubt on it.

I donīt think that there is anybody out here who entertains the possibility that Hutchinson would not have been asked about Lewis when it was found out that the two simply must have met. If Hutchinson at that stage claimed that he did NOT see any woman entering the court at any time, his version of events would become one that the police could not trust. Conversely, if he DID say "Yes, now that you mention it, there WAS this woman who hurriedly sneaked into Millers Court" and if he was able to describe her general appearance, then we would be reading today about how Hutchinson remained the star witness of the investigation.

Instead, he sunk into oblivion, much to his own dismay if he was Topping Hutchinson (and that is how it very much looks), but if Walter Dew was correct - and there is no reason to think he could or would not have been - he was never regarded as anything but truthful.

So what do we have if this is a correct version of the proceedings? We have a witness who stated unequivocally that no woman entered the court on the night when he was there, we have people in Millerīs Court confirming that Lewis DID arrive at the approximate time she said, and we therefore have a mistake. This mistake, however, Hutchinson never owned up to, and Dews reasoning accordingly went along the line of how even the most honest of people do mistake the days at times.

To me, that is how it all adds up. There is no way to prove it, but there is no compelling reason not to accept it either, and so that is what I personally do.

Comment

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

Comment

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

Agreed
Even if he thought he had been seen he would sit and wait .
If he didn't know then they may not know him etc
The main mistake that people make though is that Sarah Lewis' testimony did not make the press of the 12th
At 6pm that day , Hutchinson would know nothing of the statement .Only witnesses , jury and journalists knew .
Hence the hutch in fear , go to the police first theory collapses

You can lead a horse to water.....

Comment

Liz long
Lawende
And old uncle Tom Cobbley and all in Berner Street. ...
None of these reported sightings tempted any Mr Hutchinson to enter a police station ....
Yet a Sarah Lewis statement he's not seen or heard and he falls to pieces ??
I think not

You can lead a horse to water.....

Comment

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

Hi RJ

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

why did he feel the need to justify to place himself outside marys door in a later press account let alone across the street?

and he probably felt the need to justify atnding across the street for 45 minutes because thats what he actually did.

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

fish has done a tad more than that LOL.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason

they sure do-not only do people who are completely innocent give false confessions, people who are guilty involve themselves when they could stay quiet. They write letters, they come forward as "witnesses", they contact the police.

Its police work 101 to treat all witnesses, especially ones who come forward on their own accord, as potential suspects until they are cleared.

I recently watched a true crime show where the killer(absolutely on no ones radar) called the victims parents on their dead daughters cell phone-saying he was with the girl the night she was murdered-she had left her phone in his truck but ran off and approached another man.

Now of course I admit most stay low and dont come forward, but to try and say just because someone came forward as a witness somehow clears them is ridiculously weak argument.

and this will be an odd exchange between you and fish, because fish's favored suspect, did something far more adaucious than anything hutch did (if hutch was the killer).

Comment

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

That is true. Then again, I donīt think Hutchinson lied. I think he stood outside the court for fortyfive minutes - on the night before the murder night.

And I still think his leaving Lewis out of his story is the dealmaker.

Comment

...
The main mistake that people make though is that Sarah Lewis' testimony did not make the press of the 12th
At 6pm that day , Hutchinson would know nothing of the statement .Only witnesses , jury and journalists knew .
Hence the hutch in fear , go to the police first theory collapses

Actually, that point was raised years ago.
The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

Comment

Actually, that point was raised years ago.
The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

Lewis confirms Hutchinson, it's that simple.

But barring the laughable suggestion of him standing at the door at the inquest with his ear to the door , he couldn't know that he had been seen at 6pm.
My point stands
The whole Hutchinson story is a nonsense
As is the Lewis story which altered dramatically between statement and inquest and the constant cloak changes between Kennedy and Lewis .
Yes , I know you think both existed and were sisters
Evidence required ,as if so , Kennedy's was the last sighting and she should have been at the inquest

Comment

Actually, that point was raised years ago.
The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

Lewis confirms Hutchinson, it's that simple.

wicky

Actually, that point was raised years ago.
The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

he may have been at the inquest, outside the doors, talking to people on the streets, etc. or -He was staying at the victoria house a stones throw from the Kelly murder scene, he could have picked it up there.

even if he hadnt even heard of Lewis at the inquest, he may have simply wanted to wait until the inquest was over before coming forward, for obvious reasons if he wasnt telling the truth.

The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

again for the millionth time-NO. physically impossible for lewis to have seen the same couple hutch did. Aman and Mary were already inside by the time Lewis arrived. talk about "ridiculous"! give it up man.

The only thing Lewis corroborates is that hutch was standing out in the middle of the night, with no good explanation, waiting and watching "for someone to come out". creepy suspicious behavior if ive ever heard it.

"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

Comment

Not to dampen your enthusiasm, Roy, but the argument that Lewis would have had a few seconds only, in darkness to boot, to observe the loiterer had been presented many times before. ... etc

But I am excited, and I'm afraid nothing can dampen my enthusiasm at this point, because the simple straightforward way in which RJ explained it has set me free. As a non-Hutchinsonian, I have choices! I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

I. He came forward as a good citizen and told the truth. He knew Mary Kelly, and he did encounter and speak to her. He saw the well dressed man and stayed and observed after they entered her domicile together.

II. He was there, although his story is somewhat embellished, but he has the gist of it.

III. He wasn't there and none of this happened. Why come forward and tell this tale? Because he could, that's all, nothing nefarious. He was all worked up over the 'orrible murder.

IV. Yes he was there and I. or II. occurred but he had the wrong night.

It doesn't matter which it was, because Hutch was not the serial killer we seek. (This is a suspect thread, you know) Further, I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

A. He was Toppy

B. He was not Toppy

No problem either way

In fact, I can even take joy in Simon Wood's proposal, because I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

1. There was a Jack the Rippper

2. There was no Jack the Ripper

All bases covered

Like the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast *, I have choices and I feel great. I wish I could invite all of you for a free cyber breakfast and pick up the tab on PayPal or however that works. Have a nice evening,

Roy

* two eggs made to order, two strips of bacon, two sausage links, crispy hash browns and two fluffy buttermilk pancakes.

I've sat in that same booth many times. They changed the sign out front for the filming; otherwise it is pretty much the same. It is still operation, and is still serving up the Grand Slam. I think they changed the oil in the deep fryer once or twice since those days....

Have a good evening.

Comment

But I am excited, and I'm afraid nothing can dampen my enthusiasm at this point, because the simple straightforward way in which RJ explained it has set me free. As a non-Hutchinsonian, I have choices! I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

I. He came forward as a good citizen and told the truth. He knew Mary Kelly, and he did encounter and speak to her. He saw the well dressed man and stayed and observed after they entered her domicile together.

II. He was there, although his story is somewhat embellished, but he has the gist of it.

III. He wasn't there and none of this happened. Why come forward and tell this tale? Because he could, that's all, nothing nefarious. He was all worked up over the 'orrible murder.

IV. Yes he was there and I. or II. occurred but he had the wrong night.

It doesn't matter which it was, because Hutch was not the serial killer we seek. (This is a suspect thread, you know) Further, I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

A. He was Toppy

B. He was not Toppy

No problem either way

In fact, I can even take joy in Simon Wood's proposal, because I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

1. There was a Jack the Rippper

2. There was no Jack the Ripper

All bases covered

Like the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast *, I have choices and I feel great. I wish I could invite all of you for a free cyber breakfast and pick up the tab on PayPal or however that works. Have a nice evening,

Roy

* two eggs made to order, two strips of bacon, two sausage links, crispy hash browns and two fluffy buttermilk pancakes.

Then I am also excited. For you. Content ripperologists are uncommon. All cred to R J if he can accomplish that!

Comment

Top cartoon. There is Hutchinson's mother of Jews description. You couldn't get much better than the details in that drawing. A fully fledged out composite of JtR with horseshoe necktie pin and all. Now look to left. There is Hutchinson looking surprised at this ghastly fellow picking up MJK. Now look below that drawing and there is an officer. His name is L.63. His real name still a mystery. Look at the L.63 is saying 'I was on duty all night and never heard a sound'.

So apparently Lambeth 63 wasn't present when Hutchinson's man picked up MJK and didn't see anything (never heard a sound).

L.63 is Hutchinson's corroboration... or at least should be. How is it that Hutchinson who claims to have been there for 45 minutes didn't see this PC on his rounds?